Friday, February 17, 2017

In a unanimous ruling the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that professed religious belief does not exempt businesses from comply with public accommodation laws and that if one is open for business to the general public, then you need to serve all of the general public. It was a sharp rebuke faux Christian martyr to Barronelle
Stutzman who has become the darling of the gay hating set who believe that they are above the laws that apply to the rest of society. Under the sick reasoning of these people, not being allowed to persecute others is a form of persecution toward them. As is always the case, the Christofascists are among the most selfish and self-centered individuals that one will likely ever meet. To the Christofascists like Stutzman, the rights and very lives of others mean nothing despite much feigned piety and public display of religiosity. The Seattle Times looks at this strong message to Christofascists that they are not above the law. Here are excerpts:

A Richland florist who refused to provide flowers to a
gay couple for their wedding violated anti-discrimination law, the state
Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Thecourt ruled
unanimouslythat
Barronelle Stutzman discriminated against longtime customers Rob Ingersoll and
Curt Freed when she refused to do the flowers for their 2013 wedding because of
her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. Instead, Stutzman suggested
several other florists in the area who would help them.Stutzman and her attorneys said they would appeal the decision
to the U.S. Supreme Court. They also held out hope that President Donald Trump
would issue an executive order protecting religious freedom, which was a campaign
pledge.In its decision, the state’s highest court rejected
Stutzman’s claims that since other florists in the area were willing to provide
flowers, no harm resulted from her refusal.Writing for the court
majority, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud said, “We emphatically reject this
argument. We agree with Ingersoll and Freed that ‘this case is no more about
access to flowers than civil rights cases were about access to sandwiches.’ …
As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations
laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a
broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all
citizens in the commercial marketplace.”The court also
rejected Stutzman’s claims that her floral arrangements were a form of artistic
expression and so protected by the First Amendment. Citing the case of a New
Mexico photographer who similarly refused to take pictures at a gay marriage,
the court said, “while photography may be expressive, the operation of a
photography business is not.”In December 2012, soon after the state legalized gay
marriage, Ingersoll and Freed began planning a large wedding. Stutzman, who had
provided flowers to the couple numerous times over the years, refused, citing
her religious belief that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a
woman.

Stutzman is a self-centered bigot. Note how she hopes Der Trumpenführer will sign an executive order granting Christofascists special rights. These people are at threat to religious freedom of other citizens and need to be stopped.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I am affiliated with Caplan & Associates PC where I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and limited liability companies and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.